Interim
Joint Committee on Education

Minutes
of the<MeetNo1>1st Meeting

of
the 2012 Interim

<MeetMDY1>June 11, 2012

Call to Order and Roll Call

The<MeetNo2>1st meeting of the Interim Joint
Committee on Education was held on<Day>Monday,<MeetMDY2>June 11, 2012, at<MeetTime>1:00 PM, in<Room>Room
154 of the Capitol Annex. Senator Ken Winters, Co- Chair,
called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.

Representative Meeks reported that the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education heard presentations from the Council on Postsecondary
Education and the University of Louisville about efforts to improve student
success in higher education.

Dr. John Hayek, Senior Vice President for Budget Planning
and Policy, Council on Postsecondary Education, provided data on the progress
Kentucky is making towards 2020 goals for degree attainment, transfer, and
graduation rates. Dr. Hayek provided information on changes in tuition costs, state
allocations for higher education, and direct tuition costs for students (after
excluding grants and scholarships).

Representative Meeks said the discussion highlighted four
important points. There is an increasing working partnership between the
Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) and the various institutions to address
shared goals. There are expanded improvement strategies and increased rigor and
availability of data being tracked, and there is continuing financial pressure
on the universities to meet the 2020 accountability goals.

Representative Edmonds reported on the Subcommittee on
Elementary and Secondary Education. The subcommittee heard discussions on
services provided and the challenges faced by Kentucky’s educational
cooperatives.

Terry Holliday, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of
Education (KDE), explained the partnership that has developed between the department
and the co-ops. He provided insight on how the co-ops’ work is an essential
component in implementing the requirements of Senate Bill 1.

Directors from three of the eight cooperatives in Kentucky
provided handouts explaining the history, mission, and vision of their co-ops.
The co-ops are committed to providing services and programs that support their
member districts and schools. Services are based on the needs of the teachers
and administrators in members’ districts. They are focused on assisting
teachers and administrators to become more effective so they can help students
reach their potential. The directors discussed their challenges, such as
sustainable funding, organization, and geography.

Overview of Teacher Evaluation System

Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education, explained the two
years of work KDE has done with the teacher effectiveness and growth pilot. He praised
Senate Bill 1 as extremely bold legislation, which other states are looking to
replicate. The teacher evaluation effectiveness system was included in the department’s
application for waivers to No Child Left Behind provisions. Kentucky was one of
the first eleven states to be granted a waiver. A waiver condition requires the
State Education Agency (SEA) to develop guidelines for local teacher and
principal evaluation support systems. The State Board must ensure schools are
implementing the teacher and principal evaluation system consistently with the
guidelines.

Felicia Smith, Associate Commissioner, Office of Next
Generation Learners, compared the differences between the current and proposed
systems. KDE is proposing a common statewide system for teacher and principal
evaluation. It is considering requiring annual evaluations of certified
personnel and more in-depth training for evaluators. In a system with multiple
measures, the evaluators of the system need to have a strong understanding of
what it means to use these multiple measures in a meaningful way. There are several
different national models that can be explored for developing training for school
staff and the evaluators. The department will be required to significantly
increase monitoring of local evaluation system implementation if adopted
statewide.

Ms. Smith said that the teacher effectiveness system places a
lot of emphasis on observation of teachers. The department hopes to have peer
observers that help provide more intensive, content specific support to
educators. The department wants a system that is better aligned with what is
happening in the classroom where students are learning based on teachers’ professional
growth plans. Ms. Smith also stated that staff believes in the importance of professional
self-awareness and self-reflection as a profession and the proposed measures should
improve the quality of educators in classrooms. A student survey is proposed to
collect information about students’ views of educational experiences.

Ms. Smith noted that there are potentially legislative
implications with the proposed teacher effectiveness system. House Bill 140 and
Senate Joint Resolution 88 are foundational pieces that could be the basis for
future legislation. The proposed system focuses on growth, reflection, and
meaningful professional contributions.

Responding to Senator Winters’ question regarding KRS
156.557, Dr. Holliday said he feels that piloting in 54 districts is a
reasonable approach prior to statewide adoption. KRS 156.557 provides an option
for a local district to develop its own teacher effectiveness plan and
principal evaluation plan.

Senator Winters said he introduced Senate Joint Resolution
88 to make sure the General Assembly is fulfilling its oversight responsibility
and to ensure the legislature has a look at the final proposal prior to
implementation.

Responding to Representative Belcher’s question regarding
peer observation, Dr. Holliday clarified that peer observation should be
formative rather than summative in nature and provide feedback to teachers.

Michael Daily, Director, Division of Next Generation
Professionals, explained that the kindergarten through second grade component
in the pilot was a focus group process. A facilitator asked a group of students
age-appropriate questions about their learning experiences in class. The
questions were about how they learn, what their experiences were in learning,
and what resources did they have available to them.

Responding to Representative Belcher’s question regarding
annual evaluation, Ms. Smith said that the issue will be studied through the
extended field test. She stated the department will be looking at evaluator caseload
and the appropriate number of observations for a principal.

In response to Senator
Westwood’s question regarding self-reflection, Mr. Daily said that information from
the field test provided the department with a better understanding of the
impact of self-reflection on professional growth. It was found that teachers
reflect a lot on student results, how the lesson was received, and the mood of
the children. Mr. Daily said the division is trying to formalize the process, and
it has designed some instruments that to test in the spring. The instruments
address professional role planning and self-reflection. The goal of self-reflection
is to inform practice, help teachers improve instruction, and give them the
opportunity to record formally the evidence they have on how that reflection is
improving their practice. Dr. Holliday said that KDE is not going to ask
teachers to develop a portfolio collection of files. They will be provided an
electronic method for representing evidence.

In response to Representative Waide’s question regarding
roles for parents, Dr. Holliday said the department is still looking for a
valid and reliable instrument for use by parents. It has a validated tool for representing
student voice but not for parent voice.

Senator Givens stated that the legislature and the Kentucky
Department of Education are in this together, and the motivation is there for everyone
to do well.

Representative Graham stated that the bottom line for
administrators and teachers is the test results. For teachers and
administrators, it is all about testing.

Responding to Representative Graham’s question regarding
test results not being the most effective method of teacher evaluation, Dr.
Holliday said their work has been heavily informed by the Measuring Effective
Teaching National Project. He also stated that the intent is to monitor the
field testing and conduct research to see which components actually helps
predict student learning outcomes.

In response to Representative Rollins’ question regarding
student growth in subject areas where there is no testing, Dr. Holliday said KDE
intends to use measures based on performance, but the department does not have
final recommendations on this and are looking at different possibilities.

Responding to Representative DeCesare’s question regarding lack
of a parent evaluation, Dr. Holliday said the reason the student feedback is being
considered before parent feedback is because the student instrument has been
validated. He also noted that the parent’s response rates may prove a problem
and that an online survey often produces a small response rate from parents.

Status of Adoption of Science Standards

Felicia Smith, Associate Commissioner, Office of Next
Generation Learners, said the science standards are a critical piece of the
work that was generated by Senate Bill 1. Kentucky is a lead state on the national
work on development of the science standards.

Karen Kidwell, Director, Division of Program Standards, said
that Achieve, Inc. is leading this effort. It has selected 26 states to assist
in development. In May, 2012, Achieve, Inc. released the first draft of the science
standards for public comment. The second public release will be in the fall. A
team of individuals representing Kentucky’s elementary and secondary schools
and postsecondary institutions recently compiled an 80 page response to the
draft. The department feels confident about the process being used. The biggest
shift in the science standards is imbedding more engineering practices
throughout all of the standards. The final release of these standards will be
in early 2013.

Preschool
Funding for Students with Disabilities – Factors that Influenced Recent Changes

Senator Winters said he added preschool funding to the
agenda because the Senators have received many questions, phone calls, letters,
and emails from superintendents about preschool funding. There is a lot of
frustration and confusion about this topic in school districts. Some of the
superintendents shared a statement reportedly by the department that cuts in
the program would not have been necessary if the Senate had passed House Bill
329. Legislators were left vulnerable when asked to explain this statement.

Hiren Desai, Office of Administration and Support, said the
department has had a lot of questions about preschool funding in the past
month. This was a result of the allocations letter sent to the superintendents
on May 4. A lot of superintendents asked why preschool funding had such
variation and whether the preschool budget was cut during the 2012 legislative
session. He told the superintendents that preschool funding was not cut, and
the General Assembly fully funded preschool. The problem is with the preschool
funding formula that has been in place since 1992. KDE has a regulation that links
funding for eligible students with disabilities and at-risk children.

Mr. Desai said KDE will request legislation to simplify the
formula and process. The statute and regulation establishing the funding
process do not make sense today. The department has made a commitment to the superintendents
that staff will work with the General Assembly to try to change this formula. His
goal in the presentation was to get support for the change.

Senator Higdon expressed concern about the department’s
communication to districts about the issue and said that superintendents were
upset with the cuts.

Responding to Senator Higdon’s questions regarding what may
have changed in the formula from previous years, Dr. Holliday said the big
difference was a year of self-reporting rather than the use of an electronic database.

Responding to Senator Higdon’s question regarding House Bill
329 fixing the problem, Mr. Desai said House Bill 329 would have eliminated all
of the formulas, and it would have taken care of the problem.

Responding to Senator Givens’ question regarding the
variables changing, Mr. Desai explained the variations on the chart provided to
members, and stated that some allocations are expected to change because they
are tentative projections.

Responding to Representative Farmer’s question regarding how
the department is dealing with the current implosion, Dr. Holliday said that
clarification had been sent to schools in an email the previous Friday.

Responding to Senator McGaha’s question regarding district finance
officers’ understanding of the funding formula, Bill Buchannon said all district
finance officers are provided the information.

Senator Givens suggested that House Bill 329 would only have
impacted funding for students with disabilities. Senator Winters noted that
House Bill 329 would have eliminated the three-year projection formula being
used by the department but that, even if passed, the law would not have gone
into effect in time to have prevented the current controversy.

Review of Administrative Regulations

There was no testimony or action taken on 11 KAR 4:080, 11
KAR 5:145, 16 KAR 4:030, and 702 KAR 7:065.

With no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 3:19 p.m.